In a rambling statement in bond court Tuesday, Boland said she went to the school because "I wanted to make a political demonstration about problems in my life relating to the fact that racist feminists, including institutions like that where I was demonstrating ... have been causing me these alleged mental problems ever since I met a lesbian professor."

NightOwl2255:Real Women Drink Akvavit: If someone is legally purchasing a gun, there's no excuse for not being trained in its proper use and taught the laws about guns in their state and community. Those "I just want a gun, no training or testing, because the second amendment!!1!one1!" types are huge problems waiting to happen and make us non-nutty gun nuts look bad with their vast amounts of stupid. I'm really surprised that the second amendment hysterics either don't realize this or refuse to acknowledge it. I'm going with "refuse to acknowledge it".

The NRA would go farking crazy (well, crazier) if any state tried to impose any such qualification on the purchase of a firearm.

Yeah, that's why I didn't renew my NRA membership way back in the '90s. If my money is going to support crazy, it better be to get the crazy people treatment, not enable and encourage them. Especially if they're packin' heat. Since that was a voluntary contribution, the same amount ($35/yr currently - not a lot and less than I give to PBS and the SPCA, among others) now goes to the ACLU, just in case I need someone effective and not batshiat insane to protect my constitutional rights. I want to do my tiny little part to make sure they're still around in the highly unlikely event I personally need help on a constitutional issue, including my firearm ownership. The NRA can shrivel and die for all I care, though. They're making us all look bad with their BS and it annoys me terribly.

Sounds to me like a classic case of "right wing loonie meets homosexual, experiences tinglies in the naughty bits when thinking about said homosexual, tries to kill homosexual for being a corrupting influence"

So, semi-automatic guns SAVE lives.If she had the 6 shot revolver that gun grabbers call for, 6 people would be dead.

Not all semi-auto handguns need the shooter to manually engage the slide to chamber a round before they can be fired. That's a particular issue with the type of gun she was using that makes it difficult for older folks or people like me that have weak little girlie hands to actually use that type of weapon. Which is why I don't have a Taurus. I've fired one, but had problems with how tight the slide was, so I took a pass on buying it.

Real Women Drink Akvavit:jehovahs witness protection: The semi-automatic has a capacity of nine rounds, but there was no cartridge in the chamber.

So, semi-automatic guns SAVE lives.If she had the 6 shot revolver that gun grabbers call for, 6 people would be dead.

Not all semi-auto handguns need the shooter to manually engage the slide to chamber a round before they can be fired. That's a particular issue with the type of gun she was using that makes it difficult for older folks or people like me that have weak little girlie hands to actually use that type of weapon. Which is why I don't have a Taurus. I've fired one, but had problems with how tight the slide was, so I took a pass on buying it.

Krieghund:Sounds to me like a classic case of "right wing loonie meets homosexual, experiences tinglies in the naughty bits when thinking about said homosexual, tries to kill homosexual for being a corrupting influence"

She seems loony enough that "right wing" labels don't really work. She's just crazy... there seems to be no order in there, just chaos. Trust me, I live here, and there are plenty of right-wing loonies to go around but she's extra nuts.

Can we all just agree that once you try to kill people your mental problems are no longer "alleged"?

No. There is clearly a difference between them. Unless you want every shooter "not guilty by reason of insanity."

Perhaps a forensic shrink or a lawyer versed in this issue can explain it.

It is one thing to be declared legally insane and another thing entirely to be obviously f*cked in the head. Simply having "mental problems" and possessing no capacity to recognize right or wrong are, as you state, different things. I don't think it's unfair to suggest that anyone who believes murder to be a viable option in any circumstance is simply not functioning correctly without eliminating any culpability on their part.

Dansker:It's so great that someone had the bright idea of calling James Eagan Holmes "Sideshow Bob" to deny him his notoriety. Because if people just used his actual name I would only remember him when he is mentioned, but thanks to some genius I can also be reminded of that murdering asshole when I'm watching classic Simpsons episodes. Which is nice.

jehovahs witness protection:Not all semi-auto handguns need the shooter to manually engage the slide to chamber a round before they can be fired. That's a particular issue with the type of gun she was using that makes it difficult for older folks or people like me that have weak little girlie hands to actually use that type of weapon. Which is why I don't have a Taurus. I've fired one, but had problems with how tight the slide was, so I took a pass on buying it.

Ever try the slide on a Glock? Much lighter and easy to handle.

Practically fires itself.

/scratch the "practically". makes the phrase "guns kill" almost make sense

Real Women Drink Akvavit:If someone is legally purchasing a gun, there's no excuse for not being trained in its proper use and taught the laws about guns in their state and community. Those "I just want a gun, no training or testing, because the second amendment!!1!one1!" types are huge problems waiting to happen and make us non-nutty gun nuts look bad with their vast amounts of stupid. I'm really surprised that the second amendment hysterics either don't realize this or refuse to acknowledge it. I'm going with "refuse to acknowledge it".

This is why I think that liability insurance is the way to handle gun purchasing in America. You want to purchase a gun? Enhanced background check you pay for, training course you pay for, registration you pay for, and liability insurance you pay for, hopefully to the tune of a couple thousand dollars. Then you get to buy a gun. You want to buy something that is not a hunting rifle or basic shotgun (assault weapons, handguns, etc), you apply to buy the weapon and pay for the application, submit to weapons and storage inspections which you pay for, and a shiat ton more liability insurance is added on. If you are a safe owner who doesn't end up with mental problems or in trouble with the law the insurance costs will eventually level off. If you are not a safe owner, become a nut or a criminal you could have your firearms confiscated. Think of it like new driver's car insurance, with the threat of losing your car as well. It will be a cost to every owner, but responsible owners wouldn't be fronting all the costs, just like safe drivers don't front the costs of new drivers. The money could be used to pay for better training and background check programs, and to pay victims of gun violence.

Obviously this doesn't deal with the illegal gun trade, but it will hopefully convince the small dick compensators that owning a gun to look cool isn't worth it.

factoryconnection:Dansker: It's so great that someone had the bright idea of calling James Eagan Holmes "Sideshow Bob" to deny him his notoriety. Because if people just used his actual name I would only remember him when he is mentioned, but thanks to some genius I can also be reminded of that murdering asshole when I'm watching classic Simpsons episodes. Which is nice.

jehovahs witness protection:Real Women Drink Akvavit: jehovahs witness protection: The semi-automatic has a capacity of nine rounds, but there was no cartridge in the chamber.

So, semi-automatic guns SAVE lives.If she had the 6 shot revolver that gun grabbers call for, 6 people would be dead.

Not all semi-auto handguns need the shooter to manually engage the slide to chamber a round before they can be fired. That's a particular issue with the type of gun she was using that makes it difficult for older folks or people like me that have weak little girlie hands to actually use that type of weapon. Which is why I don't have a Taurus. I've fired one, but had problems with how tight the slide was, so I took a pass on buying it.

Ever try the slide on a Glock? Much lighter and easy to handle.

I have! I bought my friend's Glock 17L when she moved to Sweden. She let me fire it up at the range and because of it's length it isn't my favorite handgun, but it is a very nice weapon and easier to handle (for me, anyway) than a Taurus. Not only that, she needed the money and I was still building up my collection of handguns. I was pretty heavy on the revolver side for a while and wanted more semi-autos.

FTA: Officers arrived a few minutes later and told the woman to drop the gun and get on the ground, according to an incident report. Boland dropped the firearm and asked police if they wanted her to do some push-ups, the report states.

Farktastic:Real Women Drink Akvavit:If someone is legally purchasing a gun, there's no excuse for not being trained in its proper use and taught the laws about guns in their state and community. Those "I just want a gun, no training or testing, because the second amendment!!1!one1!" types are huge problems waiting to happen and make us non-nutty gun nuts look bad with their vast amounts of stupid. I'm really surprised that the second amendment hysterics either don't realize this or refuse to acknowledge it. I'm going with "refuse to acknowledge it".

This is why I think that liability insurance is the way to handle gun purchasing in America. You want to purchase a gun? Enhanced background check you pay for, training course you pay for, registration you pay for, and liability insurance you pay for, hopefully to the tune of a couple thousand dollars. Then you get to buy a gun. You want to buy something that is not a hunting rifle or basic shotgun (assault weapons, handguns, etc), you apply to buy the weapon and pay for the application, submit to weapons and storage inspections which you pay for, and a shiat ton more liability insurance is added on. If you are a safe owner who doesn't end up with mental problems or in trouble with the law the insurance costs will eventually level off. If you are not a safe owner, become a nut or a criminal you could have your firearms confiscated. Think of it like new driver's car insurance, with the threat of losing your car as well. It will be a cost to every owner, but responsible owners wouldn't be fronting all the costs, just like safe drivers don't front the costs of new drivers. The money could be used to pay for better training and background check programs, and to pay victims of gun violence.

Obviously this doesn't deal with the illegal gun trade, but it will hopefully convince the small dick compensators that owning a gun to look cool isn't worth it.

It's so great that someone had the bright idea of calling James Eagan Holmes "Sideshow Bob" to deny him his notoriety. Because if people just used his actual name I would only remember him when he is mentioned, but thanks to some genius I can also be reminded of that murdering asshole when I'm watching classic Simpsons episodes. Which is nice.

Treygreen13:Farktastic: Real Women Drink Akvavit:If someone is legally purchasing a gun, there's no excuse for not being trained in its proper use and taught the laws about guns in their state and community. Those "I just want a gun, no training or testing, because the second amendment!!1!one1!" types are huge problems waiting to happen and make us non-nutty gun nuts look bad with their vast amounts of stupid. I'm really surprised that the second amendment hysterics either don't realize this or refuse to acknowledge it. I'm going with "refuse to acknowledge it".

This is why I think that liability insurance is the way to handle gun purchasing in America. You want to purchase a gun? Enhanced background check you pay for, training course you pay for, registration you pay for, and liability insurance you pay for, hopefully to the tune of a couple thousand dollars. Then you get to buy a gun. You want to buy something that is not a hunting rifle or basic shotgun (assault weapons, handguns, etc), you apply to buy the weapon and pay for the application, submit to weapons and storage inspections which you pay for, and a shiat ton more liability insurance is added on. If you are a safe owner who doesn't end up with mental problems or in trouble with the law the insurance costs will eventually level off. If you are not a safe owner, become a nut or a criminal you could have your firearms confiscated. Think of it like new driver's car insurance, with the threat of losing your car as well. It will be a cost to every owner, but responsible owners wouldn't be fronting all the costs, just like safe drivers don't front the costs of new drivers. The money could be used to pay for better training and background check programs, and to pay victims of gun violence.

Obviously this doesn't deal with the illegal gun trade, but it will hopefully convince the small dick compensators that owning a gun to look cool isn't worth it.

Ah yes, the 'ol "tax crime away" plan.

Considering there would be profit for the private insurance industry and direct service programming, there's not much "tax" in it. The fact that someone could set up a business managing a registration process while still allowing big farking guns should have Republicans jizzing in their pants.

NightOwl2255:Treygreen13: NightOwl2255: The NRA would go farking crazy (well, crazier) if any state tried to impose any such qualification on the purchase of a firearm.

The NRA doesn't seem to have a problem with the concealed carry handgun permits. Which require classes.

Yeah, try imposing that on the purchase of any firearm and see how well the NRA takes it. The right to conceal carry is not constitutionally protected.

Scalia wrote in Heller: " It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

Let the NRA argue that the government has no compelling interest in keeping guns out of untrained hands and that competency certification before purchase is not the least intrusive way to satisfy that interest.

Note that "competency certification" is not "training." You don't have to buy and complete a training course; you just have to pass a test.

factoryconnection:She seems loony enough that "right wing" labels don't really work. She's just crazy... there seems to be no order in there, just chaos. Trust me, I live here, and there are plenty of right-wing loonies to go around but she's extra nuts.

But a liberal loony wouldn't have the self loathing and guilt over their natural urges. It takes religion or far right thinking to feel embarrassed and disgusting about wanting a little physical pleasure.

Farktastic:Considering there would be profit for the private insurance industry and direct service programming, there's not much "tax" in it. The fact that someone could set up a business managing a registration process while still allowing big farking guns should have Republicans jizzing in their pants.

It sounds (to me) like you're just trying to discourage people from buying guns by increasing the price, not trying to prevent gun crime. That plan does nothing to address illegal gun sales, or someone who is totally normal and sane suddenly deciding that all the people with "J" names need to die and he's the one to do it. The idea that Republicans can profit off it as some sort of twisted compromise just ruins it further.

I think a combination of approaches would be more effective. Close gun show loopholes. Registration and training along the lines of the requirements instituted for concealed carry are something I think might be good. If they make an acceptable and effective trigger lock - even better. All things I'm sure the NRA would flip their shiat over. I just don't believe that creating another tax should be how we address things we don't like.

factoryconnection:No Time To Explain: The only thing that can stop a crazy person with a gun is a bad gun

Ain't that the god-damned truth. Boland has the "mentally incompetent" act down to a science!

/CSB

My ex sis-in law (the whole family was crazy, but smart...my ex being the lesser weirdo of the bunch) went through life on public assistance. She had it down to a science. They even bought her a hospital bed and a scooter, all because she was just too lazy to get her fat butt moving. She had a son (not to be catty, but he was a bastard by one of several chubby-chasers she had on a string) She worked to get him declared ADHD and home-school him because they paid her extra for it and no one would deny his disablility. But that kid was normal as you and me (though, since I did marry into that cesspool, my quals are a bit fuzzy). On occasion, I would have him alone and he held an intelligent conversation with me without once tripping into ding-bat mode. In fact, he was pretty sane in every case (except when a normal child would flip-out and around his welfare examination times), and only being weird when out in public. I think he was more attention whore than ADHD. He's now 26yo and still living with his Mom 'cause she needs him to do stuff for her. And he's into guns. I keep waiting to get on the news and say. "I knew he was gonna do it."

/end CSB

There needs to be a 'mental' clause on the gun thing. Once declared crazy, guns are out of your network.

Mikeyworld:There needs to be a 'mental' clause on the gun thing. Once declared crazy, guns are out of your network.

Given her complete misunderstanding of the operation of that firearm, I doubt it was "hers." It is no less disturbing that she was able to obtain it, given that (it seems) everyone that knows her is perfectly clear that she's certifiably crazy.

Farktastic:Real Women Drink Akvavit:If someone is legally purchasing a gun, there's no excuse for not being trained in its proper use and taught the laws about guns in their state and community. Those "I just want a gun, no training or testing, because the second amendment!!1!one1!" types are huge problems waiting to happen and make us non-nutty gun nuts look bad with their vast amounts of stupid. I'm really surprised that the second amendment hysterics either don't realize this or refuse to acknowledge it. I'm going with "refuse to acknowledge it".

This is why I think that liability insurance is the way to handle gun purchasing in America. You want to purchase a gun? Enhanced background check you pay for, training course you pay for, registration you pay for, and liability insurance you pay for, hopefully to the tune of a couple thousand dollars. Then you get to buy a gun. You want to buy something that is not a hunting rifle or basic shotgun (assault weapons, handguns, etc), you apply to buy the weapon and pay for the application, submit to weapons and storage inspections which you pay for, and a shiat ton more liability insurance is added on. If you are a safe owner who doesn't end up with mental problems or in trouble with the law the insurance costs will eventually level off. If you are not a safe owner, become a nut or a criminal you could have your firearms confiscated. Think of it like new driver's car insurance, with the threat of losing your car as well. It will be a cost to every owner, but responsible owners wouldn't be fronting all the costs, just like safe drivers don't front the costs of new drivers. The money could be used to pay for better training and background check programs, and to pay victims of gun violence.

Obviously this doesn't deal with the illegal gun trade, but it will hopefully convince the small dick compensators that owning a gun to look cool isn't worth it.

Great idea. We should also charge a fee to vote, and institute mandatory monthly home inspections by the police, for the children.

The Dreaded Rear Admiral:Hey, two minutes away from my place, great. Also, one working firing pin away from a multiple-death school shooting on my main throughfare to-and-fro. That would have been inconvenient.

/probably inconvenient for the victims too

Firing pin was fine, it's just Dumbass McHerpaderp doesn't know that a gun needs a round in the chamber to fire.

Mikeyworld:factoryconnection: No Time To Explain: The only thing that can stop a crazy person with a gun is a bad gun

Ain't that the god-damned truth. Boland has the "mentally incompetent" act down to a science!

/CSB

My ex sis-in law (the whole family was crazy, but smart...my ex being the lesser weirdo of the bunch) went through life on public assistance. She had it down to a science. They even bought her a hospital bed and a scooter, all because she was just too lazy to get her fat butt moving. She had a son (not to be catty, but he was a bastard by one of several chubby-chasers she had on a string) She worked to get him declared ADHD and home-school him because they paid her extra for it and no one would deny his disablility. But that kid was normal as you and me (though, since I did marry into that cesspool, my quals are a bit fuzzy). On occasion, I would have him alone and he held an intelligent conversation with me without once tripping into ding-bat mode. In fact, he was pretty sane in every case (except when a normal child would flip-out and around his welfare examination times), and only being weird when out in public. I think he was more attention whore than ADHD. He's now 26yo and still living with his Mom 'cause she needs him to do stuff for her. And he's into guns. I keep waiting to get on the news and say. "I knew he was gonna do it."

/end CSB

There needs to be a 'mental' clause on the gun thing. Once declared crazy, guns are out of your network.

They're supposed to be already. In Cali if you even threaten suicide and don't even try but end up on a 72 hour hold in a mental facility, you are barred from legally obtaining an firearm for a minimum of five years. If you are certifiably crazy - nuh-uh. No guns for you. Not yours. Can't have. You also must surrender (or sell) any firearms you do already own. If you give them to a relative or friend and they let you have access to them afterwards, they can be held liable for your actions.

I have adult ADHD, but am still a legal gun owner because I don't also have the crazy. There's a difference there, so the kiddo must have an additional diagnosis (even if it is all an act) besides just the ADHD if he's still receiving benefits. He'd also have to obtain his weapons illegally.

Treygreen13:Farktastic: Considering there would be profit for the private insurance industry and direct service programming, there's not much "tax" in it. The fact that someone could set up a business managing a registration process while still allowing big farking guns should have Republicans jizzing in their pants.

It sounds (to me) like you're just trying to discourage people from buying guns by increasing the price, not trying to prevent gun crime. That plan does nothing to address illegal gun sales, or someone who is totally normal and sane suddenly deciding that all the people with "J" names need to die and he's the one to do it. The idea that Republicans can profit off it as some sort of twisted compromise just ruins it further.

I think a combination of approaches would be more effective. Close gun show loopholes. Registration and training along the lines of the requirements instituted for concealed carry are something I think might be good. If they make an acceptable and effective trigger lock - even better. All things I'm sure the NRA would flip their shiat over. I just don't believe that creating another tax should be how we address things we don't like.

Gun crime is a cultural problem in the US. Of that I am certain. We need to change the culture and if making it more difficult or expensive to obtain a firearm is a less than perfect plan, it can be the first step until we get through the generational changes necessary to make that change in culture. It's a decent first step that can be fine tuned as we go and will discourage gun ownership, which would help decrease gun crime by default. However, the truth remains that until we change the cultural view of firearms in the US, gun crime, whether the firearm was obtained legally or illegally, is not going away. It won't go away completely no matter what we do, but it can be reduced with those changes, in addition to a few more, including the ones you mentioned.

I've always liked the idea of the testing being on par with the CCW testing, btw. I don't have to take the HSC (handgun safety certificate) test required in Cali every five years anymore because I have a CCW. If you can pass the CCW test, you obviously could pass the HSC test. Probably by shootin' at it to mark your answers. ;-p